JKR/WB vs. RDR Books Trial: The “Blurry Line” of Copyright Law

112

Apr 20, 2008

Posted by KristinTLC
Uncategorized

The Associated Press has a brief history of the trial, as well as the challenges of deciding when the claim of fair use has gone to far:

“Lawrence Pulgram, an intellectual property lawyer who represented Napster in a copyright fight with the rock band Metallica, said deciding where to draw the line is rarely easy.

“Fair use is the most erratically applied doctrine in copyright.”

The article notes that A-to-Z reader guides, such as a lexicon, may be allowed under law, but that J.K. Rowling and WB charge that Steve Vander Ark went too far with the Lexicon.

“Rowling said during her testimony that Vander Ark could still do his book, as long as he changed it to take less of her material.

“I never ever once wanted to stop Mr. Vander Ark from doing his own guide. Never ever,” she said, before asking the judge again to block it in its current form.”

RDR Books Publisher Roger Rapoport says he’s willing to consider a revision, but that neither J.K. Rowling or Warner Brothers have expressed a willingness to compromise. He was asked whether there is a “danger” in granting authors too much control in “books about them”. Said Rapoport:

“We would have to get approval before we could write or publish on people’s work. They would control critical commentary on their work, at any time, whether it is our kind of book or an Associated Press article. It would create total chaos in the area of critical commentary. Frankly, I don’t think that would be good for anyone, even the authors themselves.”

The article notes that Judge Patterson is not expected to make a ruling for another month.

Find more of Leaky’s coverage of the trial here.





37 Responses to JKR/WB vs. RDR Books Trial: The “Blurry Line” of Copyright Law

Avatar Image says:

SVA could easily just adapt the lexicon book to fit in with Jo’s wishes. I wish he would just compromise!

1st comment?

Avatar Image says:

All Steve Vandar Ark would have to do is write a fifteen page essay discussing how J.K. Rowling’s Christian faith may have informed her storytelling. Not only would this be incredibly easy to do, but it would make his work undoubtedly protected under Fair Use doctrine, as it would make his material “transformative”.

I just don’t know why Steve Vandar Ark and RDR Books didn’t take this route from the beginning. It would have spared us all this insanity (though I will admit hearing JKR be witty on the stand was fun).

Avatar Image says:

Having just finished listening to the report on PotterCast, I find the question put to Mr. Rappoport to be way off base. The book in question isn’t about JO it’s about her CREATIONS and whether someone is allowed to copy her creations practically word for word into a book without offering commentary. This case isn’t about getting approval from an author to publish a book about them or their work – it’s about using (as pointed out in the podcast report) 90% of an author’s published work as the base for another book. Jo even said in the trial that she has no problem with books about Harry Potter, but that the Lexicon book offered little if any of SVA’s own thoughts or commentary was what she objected to. Mr. Rappoport even put this into the “critical commentary” genre, when if there had actually been any, they probably wouldn’t have had to go to trial.

Avatar Image says:

“He was asked whether there is a “danger” in granting authors too much control in “books about them”. Said Rapoport: “We would have to get approval before we could write or publish on people’s work. They would control critical commentary on their work”

What Rappaport says is absolutely ridiculous! In the UK we have Fair Dealing which aims to prevent people from doing what SVA/RDR are trying to do with the Lexicon, but the UK law still allows people to publish academic critical works about authors and their books without their permission! Because Fair Dealing specifically covers ‘private study and criticism and review and news reporting’. So the principal of ‘free speech’, which I understand is said to the the basis of Fair Use law, can still exist even when authors retain control over their work! The point is the amount of direct quotation versus academic analysis that exists in the books.

Avatar Image says:

sorry if my previous post sounds angry! :/

But I do wonder what they think happens in other countries that respect free speech but do not follow Fair Use.

Avatar Image says:

I can’t believe this case is about copyright/plagiarism issues. If it was, then surely JKR would have demanded that the lexicon website be closed down ages ago – instead of giving it a fansite award and admitting that she used it as research while writing her last few books. Also when she claims that it’s not fair for someone else to make profits from an author’s work – that is EXACTLY what WB does by making films based on her stories. The difference is that they paid her in advance. I’m sorry to say that this case is about money – pure and simple .

Avatar Image says:

I think no one should publish anything about HP on that level! Jo has every right to be angry and sue them!

Avatar Image says:

I can’t believe this case is about copyright/plagiarism issues. If it was, then surely JKR would have demanded that the lexicon website be closed down ages ago – instead of giving it a fansite award and admitting that she used it as research while writing her last few books. Also when she claims that it’s not fair for someone else to make profits from an author’s work – that is EXACTLY what WB does by making films based on her stories. The difference is that they paid her in advance. I’m sorry to say that this case is about money – pure and simple .

Avatar Image says:

Harry Potter’s serias is JK’s. NO one has the right to publish a lexions about somebody else’s work. Uh I was having such a nice day but now I am pissed off again.

Avatar Image says:

Ok I was just wondering if the author of the lexicon had been in the UK if it would have even gone as far as it has. And I do agree it’s basicly about money not the fact that JKR was infringed upon. If the author had paid JKR for use would there be a trial? Things that make you go whem (wonder about that)

Avatar Image says:

@ElizabethJ Wrong on almost every count.

JKR never used the Lexicon to write her books. The whole point of the case is the web Lexicon is a free-to-use non-profit making fan-based site NOT a personal SVA/RDR cash cow, which is what the book is attempting to do, and, by the way, which steals all the freely given fan input into the site without acknowledgement or remuneration. You are right about it being partly about money though, RDR and SVA are keen for different reasons to profit off of JKR’s hard work, like Voldemort’s parasitical piece of soul in Harry, its raison d’être becomes living off others.

Most important of all is the clear evidence, once again, of Rapaport’s congenital and wilful dissembling, the case was never about stopping critical commentary, it was always about theft, pure and simple. The trouble with Fair Use is that it is a grey area of law that might permit the legalisation of theft for the common good. But, one has to ask, is SVA’s theft really for the common good? Yes, the book may be useful, as the judge hinted at in court, but useful enough to legitimise common theft? That is the real question, and, it has to be asked, will not the law itself be brought into disrepute by the legalisation of such common theft?

Avatar Image says:

rapoports comment is simply stupid! The whole suit is not about a book that contains critical comments but copied material from the original.

Avatar Image says:

rotfang07 – did you actually read my comment? I never stated that the lexicon did not violate copyright law, which is a complicated area in itself. I merely questioned the fact that if JKR is so upset about plagiarism/copyright issues, why did she not demand that the lexicon website be shut down years ago, instead of giving it a fansite award? And she DID use it for research. On her own website she stated that, while out writing, she had gone into internet cafes to check out facts. My own suspicion was that the money that this book would make was the reason that this case has ended up in court, rather that her rights as author may or may not have been violated.

Avatar Image says:

I find the argument that it’s about money not about copright ludicous. Just becasue WB makes money off it and they paid her first yada yada yada – well hello she CONSENTED to that. Money, no money whatever she signed papers that give WB the right to do it.

Where is it so obvious to everybody that it is about money? The woman doesn’t NEED scads of more money! What I hear from the trial is that is it not a critique and contains little analysis and that becasue it quotes verbatim passages without acknowlegement this isn’t fair or sporting or even good publishing and lowers the quality of the piece and therefore the Harry Potter world.

Being a good reference guide doesn’t mean it has to be copied. And quite frankly why would I buy the book when I can whack something in the search engine and find it quicker than in a book??

No I am not hearing money I am hearing “I don’t want this because it isn’t very high quality and it breaks every quoting ocnvention a first year tertiary student knows like the back of their hand – you ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR SOURCES every single time you quote them!

I don’t understand why the judge keeps telling JKR/WB to settle when they have clearly stated what they want to occur as a compromise – and it’s reasonable too. Provide commentary on the books don’t just quote them. Why don’t they tell SVA/RDR to compromise with JKR/WB? there is a compromise on the table!!!!!!!! Take it you fools.

Avatar Image says:

This is NOT about JKR being greedy, she didn’t even bring the case against SVA, that was WB. This is about SVA being a greedy little so & so. The Lexicon fan site didn’t come up for any criticism or concern from JRK because it was nothing to do with financial gain, it was purely informative, but now SVA is trying to make money & that’s the difference. JKR has told him to write his own book, so why doesn’t he? Is he intellectually deficient & can only copy things? The one thing that I can see coming out of this is that RDR are getting exactly what THEY want, more publicity than they could ever have dreamed of!! Could this be the reason they told SVA that it was OK to print the Lexicon? or am I just being cynical! And think of all the publicity that SVA now has!! & he’s decided to live in the UK, oh, joy for us!! I don’t think so somehow, he sounds very up his own butt to me!!

Avatar Image says:

a Month oi long time to wait. and SVA wanted fast money so he just copied his website rather than do much real work

Avatar Image says:

Who knows exactly what is in the Lexiconbook ? Is there anyone who had a preview at it? Maybe someone at the Leaky? Some people say it is only cut and paste, how do they know? I like the HPworld Rowling created, it was great fun to read the books, but I also like the Lexicon A to Z index, which came in very usefull, if I wanted to look up something. If anybody is going to loose, it will be the HPfan.

Avatar Image says:

You can read the Lexicon Book at the link below.

It’s part of documents SVA submitted to the court and is on Justia.com.

Filing 52. The Book is Attachments 2 thru 5 (Exhibits 2,3,4,5)

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/52/

Avatar Image says:

@Bowfreak We have been reading Steve’s book for weeks it is on Justia.com at the address below:

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/52/2.html

@ElizabethJ The reason the Leaky website was not taken down by JKR was stated in my original post: it was a free-for-use non-profit fan site that JKRowling allowed to infringe for precisely those free-at-source free-to-use reasons, because it was for the fans by the fans. JKR could never anticipate that the manager and self-professed “fan”of the site would steal the fans’ contributions to the site to use for a profit making venture involving 91% copyright infringement through an essentially cut and paste technique.

The case is ENTIRELY a “copyright/plagiarism issue.” The basis for your comments is without foundation precisely because the site is not like the book. The other oft repeated myth is that JKR used the Lexicon to write her book(s). JKR stated on oath in court during the trial the ONLY reason she posted the remark about looking at the Lexicon site was so that she could give it an award to encourage the sites’ non-profit making, free-to-use, fan-based nature. The site includes fan essays, amendments, corrections, contributions, NONE of which have been recognised or remunerated by SVA or RDR. They have trampled all over the fans’ copyrights and goodwill in order to make a fast buck.

Your suspicion that this is a money issue for WB/JKR can only be sustained if we believe that JKR lied on oath about it NOT being about the money. Now, here is the interesting bit: SVA and RDR were caught again and again dissembling, evading, and distorting the facts in this case before and during their testimony, JKR was repeatedly challenged and made the defense look ridiculous because she stuck to the facts and told the truth (hence Wu’s description of her as a “star witness”). You have to believe RDR and SVA and disbelieve JKR in order to sustain your position. Well, it’s a free country, but as RDR is a proven and congenital dissembler, and as SVA was caught essentially and repeatedly contradicting himself on oath, I would think twice.

Avatar Image says:

Apologies: for Leaky read Lexicon of course; re first line of 02:22 PM post.

Avatar Image says:

First off, this case is not plagiarism; it is about copyright and those are are two very different things.

@ Antonija:

Copyright law is designed to protect expressions fixed in a tangible medium so saying that the series is hers is just wrong. On top of that there is an entire statutory provision (17 USC 1107) designed to permit certain uses of the protected expression fixed in a tangible medium. THAT is what this case is about.

@ Elizabeth J:

I couldn’t agree with you more about the point you brought up regarding the web version of The Lexicon. If it was such blatant copying why did Jo not take it down then? In addition why are the fans who used to praise the accuracy of The Lexicon now vilifying Steve? If it was such clear and blatant copyright infringement wouldn’t there have been a problem years ago?

I think we both agree this is not a clear cut case. Just because the web version of The Lexicon is OK does not mean a book version is OK. However one has to wonder about the difference between a book Lexicon which generates profits from sales and a web Lexicon with ads and other things that generate income. As long as either is not cutting into the potential market of the copyright holder I don’t see much.

@ Kezzbaear:

You say that being a good reference guide does not mean it has to be copied, but personally that is what I liked about the Lexicon. I would not find it as useful if it just paraphrased Rowling’s words and that is why I think there is some value in organizing this material. That should and will be considered in teh fair use analysis.

Avatar Image says:

Forgive my typo above: 17 USC 107. :)

Avatar Image says:

Fair Use. Idea/expression dichotomy

Different ideas express themselves in different and unique ways . Allowing protection for the expression of ideas should not prevent the free flow of ideas..

Since the expression of an idea stems from the thought behind the idea, when the thought behind the idea differs so does the expression. The idea behind a novel is a novel. The idea behind lexicon is not the same thing. .

In the USA Copyright reconciles itself with the 1st amendment. by saying copying just for the sake of copying is a valueless contribution to society.

Fair Use Factors

1. Purpose 2. Nature 3 Amount Used What is needed to achieve a specific purpose determines the amount used. What needs to be weighed here is the societal benefit that it affords versus how Much is used. 4 . Market harm

Lexicon does not adversely affect the marketplace for the original series of books
Avatar Image says:

uh ... “I never ever once wanted to stop Mr. Vander Ark from doing his own guide. Never ever,” she said, before asking the judge again to block it in its current form.” where did that come from?

forgive me if i’m wrong but they were blocking this book and shut down mugglenets before ever having any idea what was in it. JKR doesn’t want an encyclopedia, the fact that apparently this one used way too much direct quotes and was poorly put together seems to have given her case merit but i have to wonder where we would be had there been more paraphrasing and creative disicriptions. Jo still didn’t want an encyclopidia, period.

is this her trying to show a way to a possible settlement?

Avatar Image says:

@akemia42

A free beer for the fans is not the same as an expensive bourbon paid for by the fans to SVA. That difference is why JKR didn’t go after the site.

Copyright is not restricted to any one medium “tangible” or otherwise. You cite no law to back up your claim, there is no such law.

91% cut and paste is lazy and copyright infringing and the book is dross even RDR’s lawyers said so in court. Their only legal point is that if you stretch Fair Use into realms it has never gone before RDR and SVA’s theft of JKR’s work would be legal. You can look the book up for free at:

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/52/2.html

Avatar Image says:

@siyrean I could be worng about this, but I think Jo simply asked Mugglenet not to publish a lexicon, because she wants to do it herself with the profits to go to charity. They pulled back because they respect Jo’s wishes. I guess if they had gone on with it and done it properly (not just copy-paste) plus added enough commentary, neither WB nor Jo would have sued them. Just because she doesnt fancy people writing a book she would like to write herself about her series doesnt mean she necassarily goes ahead and sues them…if they are as clever as RDR/Steve and infringe her copyright though and are so unwilling to compromise, I dont see why she shouldnt. And I guess with a lexicon on something like HP it is difficult not to infringe copyright.

Avatar Image says:

“Copyright law is designed to protect expressions fixed in a tangible medium so saying that the series is hers is just wrong. On top of that there is an entire statutory provision (17 USC 1107) designed to permit certain uses of the protected expression fixed in a tangible medium. THAT is what this case is about.”

Posted by akemi42 on April 20, 2008 @ 03:34 PM

How is that wrong? It’s true. She created the world and the characters. She got it copyrighted. She wrote the books. How is it not hers?

We are free to write transformative works on the series.

We are NOT free to simply restate what’s in the books, alphabetize it, ask for $25 a book for it, evade the copyright and trademark holders when they ask to see the manuscript, when they ask us to cease and desist publication not once but FOUR times, while at the same time sending out the manuscript to publishers around the world.

I’m sorry, but WB and JKR gave RDR and SVA every possible opportunity to come to a decision about this outside of the courtroom. It’s their own fault they’re in this mess and no one else’s. Jo and WB are just protecting what is rightfully theirs. Jo created it and WB paid for the rights (and agreed to certain stipulations of hers) in order to make the films.

Jo has allowed countless HP books to be published. Why? Because they fall under fair use. She couldn’t prevent them if she wanted to. Some that didn’t fall under fair use were published, but once discovered were told to cease publishing.

To say that the series is not hers is ludicrous. If it wasn’t for her, there would be no Harry Potter.

Avatar Image says:

SVA is not writing a critical commentary of Jo and her work. He is copying her work into another format so that he can sell it for his own gain. If the law suit was about controlling critical commentary, then Jo would sue the New York Times. they criticize her often enough.

Avatar Image says:

[This is my fifth comment. My fourth and third comments were on April 18th 2:21 p.m and April 17th 11:51 p.m. respectively to the article “JKR/WB vs RDR Books Trial: Summary Reports.” My first two were posted pm April 17th @ 3:26 a.m. and 3:57 p.m. respectively to the following article: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/4/17/jkr-wb-vs-rdr-books-trial-day-three-a-partial-settlement-reached-wsj-law-blogger-dan-slater-speaks-to-ip-expert]

Re: Comments posted by Rotfang07 on April 20, 2008 @ 2:22 p.m. and 7:08 p.m.

@ Rotfang07

Although your position doesn’t require endorsement, if I could once again, agree with it in-part, or for the most part, in spirit and principle. It has developed along a very rational, and logical, line of thinking, which I’m sure you taken some time of your own to think about.

As to the “copyright/plagiarism issue” which you touched upon in the 2:22 p.m. posting. In my opinion, it would be nice for both sides of the issue to make sure that this “copyright/plagiarism issue” is hashed out. Because, “Fair Use” is, as it has been mentioned before, and as to how it seems to be written in Code, an “affirmative defense.” It seems to have an essence of “timeliness” embedded into it; that is, someone creates a prima facie case of copyright infringement, or the like, and the affirmative defense can quickly “shift” to “Fair Use.” It would be nice if the “copyright/plagiarism issue” were considered thoroughly, before focusing more attention on “Fair Use.” In the end, it would benefit the defendants, if there really wasn’t a “copyright/plagiarism issue”, and they are redeemed. And, it would benefit the plaintiffs to know for certain the “copyright/plagiarism issue.”

As to the “beer/bourbon” analogy which you touched upon in the 7:08 p.m. posting. Although, I can [only] relate to enjoying the smell of bourbon, and detesting the smell of beer, because the smell is as far as my imagination will take me, I think that the bourbon part of the analogy is a very creative and illustrative concept of yours that is worth repeating. It should be repeated often. As I’ve mentioned before, critical analyses, commentary, fans and fan sites have added an enormous amount of value to the Harry Potter world, in my opinion. It has benefited J. K. Rowling, no doubt. But, it has been a source of “something that no-one can put a finger on” kind of value to the Harry Potter audience. There are essays, thoughts, and a bit of cleverness, to many of the fans contributions. That is something that isn’t developed through a process “like that of beer”, but rather, it is created “like vintage bourbon,” with care and time in a barrel of some underground Italian palace, if that is how something important like that is made.

Avatar Image says:

@ rotfang07 : I took the time to read the document mentioned in the first line of the 02:22 PM post and the 14 attachements to the document.

The document itself contains the declaration of Mr Vander Ark, in which he says the layout of the Lexicon book would be in the Format of an A to Z index. He also gives some entry examples

Attachement 1 contains a letter .

In Attachement 2 it is said : ” Abbrevations used in the book : All information used ….. comes from J.K.Rowling, either in the novelles, “the schoolbooks”, from her interviews or from material she developed or wrote herself” and it contains a list of abbreviations used.

Attachement 3 to 7 contain a preview of the entries in the book.

Attachement 8 to 13 contain an errata list.

Attachement 14 contains an example of printed pages of the book. for the letters A to D

In the Lexicon Website there are indeed a lot of “cut and paste” lines used, but I did not see such lines used in the preview of the book (attachements 3 to 7). I also did not see any pictures or photo’s from the different films.

Now I know more or less in which way the book will be structured and what the contents is going to be. I noticed that most of the entries in the book are based on names used in the Harry Potter novels, just trying to explain them.

I do not know the copyrightlaws , but why are they supposed to be violated? I did not notice anywhere that Mr Vander Ark is saying he is the owner of the HP world, instead I noticed that it states that the original sources for this books are Rowling’s.

It is my belief, that even if this Lexibook would be publicized, there still will be a need for Rowlings companion book, as this book would contain a lot of new and very interesting material.

Avatar Image says:

A MONTH? That’s a long time, but I hope he decides soon enough, because I can’t bear this trial to drag, it’s been torturous enough.

Avatar Image says:

Ah, I seem to have opened a can of worms here :-). But to be clear – if the online lexicon is ok because it’s free to use, and the book is not because people would have to pay for it – then money has to be an issue. Whether that is due to : 1) SVA/RDR making money, 2) JKR/WB not, or 3) JKR’s charities losing out is, however, open to debate. Having said that, I will be surprised if the lexicon website doesn’t close down if JKR/WB win this case on the basis of copyright violation. As regards JKR’s use of the lexicon, only she can know whether she did or did not go into internet cafés to check out facts while out writing. Nevertheless, I am not the only person who finds the assertion that she did not use the lexicon to help write her books and only claimed that she did in order to encourage fans to participate somewhat peculiar. But let’s see what happens…

Avatar Image says:

This isn’t about money. The kind of money the lexicon could produce is a drop in the bucket compared to the franchise.

The way I see it is as follows. SVA goes to JKR and suggests they do a project together and JKR says, “no thanks.” SVA says, “I’ll do it myself then!”

Couple that with SVA sues WB ove using his timeline on their POA DVD. WB says, “fist chance we get, we make him pay . . and pay big!”

I could be completely off base. But I have a hard time believing that these things are not elements of the case.

Avatar Image says:

Vander Ark did write JKR asking what he should add or take out of the book. Vander Ark seemed to have been talked into this by RDR. As Leakey says, this is a test case because it deals with the transference of information from a largely unregulated medium (the internet) to the more regulated media of print. Vander Ark is just an excuse to have this issue looked into.

JKR doesn’t own her work completely any more since she signed over some “intellectual property” rights to Warner Bros when she gave them rights over the movie version and HP merchandising. If JKR says, does or writes anything which leads to the loss of profits for Warner Bros, they can sue her for loss earnings under Chapter 11.

I don’t think Warner Bros makes anything over the sale of books, but I think they may have influenced the content of DH in that it reads like the Air Farce skit of when they put the seven second delay in Coach’s corner (as if one or more subplots were removed or altered and the editing to cover these holes was very minimal. DH was not as good as JKR’s other books, and easier to fit into one movie than even PS, but Warner Bros is so happy with its Hollywood format they wish to make two movies out of the book.

I think that what JKR wants to get out of this case is to see whether Warner Bros can sue Vander Ark for infringing on their property and profits. If Warner Bros loses on this, then JKR can be more free in what she says and writes.

This is no different than Disney suing Winnipeg over Winnie the Pooh.

From Leakey:

Another part of the fair-use test involves the effect on the published work’s market, essentially just how clearly the copyright holder has shown that the work will have a damaging economic effect on her publications.

From Winnipeg Free Press:

Warner Bros., the maker of the Harry Potter films and owner of all the intellectual property related to the Potter books and movies.
Avatar Image says:

Quote cut off, but is very important in determining how much rights JKR has versus how much rights Warner Bros has concerning Harry Potter:

”... Warner Bros., the maker of the Harry Potter films and owner of all the intellectual property related to the Potter books and movies. “

Or the entire quote:

“Vander Ark testified on the second day of a trial in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, pitting his publishing company, RDR Books, against Rowling and Warner Bros., the maker of the Harry Potter films and owner of all the intellectual property related to the Potter books and movies. “

By: David B. Caruso, WPG Free Press, April 16, 2008, p. D2

Note that Disney was able to keep its rights over the movie and merchandising of Winnie the Pooh (based on a bear in the London Zoo named Winnipeg who was the mascot for the 2nd Canadian Infantry Brigade) despite writer Milne’s descendants wanting to get the rights back.

JKR had a deal that Warner Bros could not make spin offs (ie movies or cartoons which go beyond the book) – or thinks she did.

Avatar Image says:

@ rotfang07

You seem to rebuke ElizabethJ for her opinion that this case is more about money than a copyright/plagiarism issue. You use the following in your reasoning: “The reason the Leaky website was not taken down by JKR was stated in my original post: it was a free-for-use non-profit fan site that JKRowling allowed to infringe for precisely those free-at-source free-to-use reasons,” so it seems to me you’re saying “It’s not about the money, because JKR allowed the website because it was free, but she’s not allowing the book because it’s a profit-making venture.” I’m confused. So how is that not about money? (if that is your reasoning…)

Then you tell us “You have to believe RDR and SVA and disbelieve JKR in order to sustain your position. Well, it’s a free country, but as RDR is a proven and congenital dissembler, and as SVA was caught essentially and repeatedly contradicting himself on oath, I would think twice.” In that same post, you offer us an example of JKR lying, when you say “The other oft repeated myth is that JKR used the Lexicon to write her book(s). JKR stated on oath in court during the trial the ONLY reason she posted the remark about looking at the Lexicon site was so that she could give it an award to encourage the sites’ non-profit making, free-to-use, fan-based nature.” So in other words, you’re saying that JKR stated on oath during the trial that she lied on her website? Is that accurate? So we should feel confident that she never lies then?

I’m just not following the reasoning here.

Avatar Image says:

Dear Madam P. THANK YOU!!

Write a Reply or Comment

Finding Hogwarts

The Leaky Cauldron is not associated with J.K. Rowling, Warner Bros., or any of the individuals or companies associated with producing and publishing Harry Potter books and films.